Indigenous Environmental Network v. United States Department of State

Case Documents:

Montana Federal Court Denied Motions to Dismiss Challenges to Keystone XL Pipeline. The federal district court for the District of Montana denied motions to dismiss lawsuits challenging the presidential permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline. The court rejected the federal defendants’ and intervenor TransCanada Corporation’s (TransCanada’s) contention that issuance of the permit was unreviewable presidential action. The court found that President Trump had waived any authority he retained to make the final decision on the presidential permit when he issued a presidential memorandum on the Keystone XL Pipeline on January 24, 2017. The court said the State Department had taken final agency action when it published the record of decision and national interest determination for the pipeline and issued the presidential permit. The court also found that the federal defendants and TransCanada had not met their burden of establishing that Congress had committed to agency discretion the State Department’s determinations. In addition, the court found that the plaintiffs had alleged procedural injuries that could be redressed through the procedural remedy of adequate review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The plaintiffs alleged, among other claims, that the defendants failed to adequately disclose climate impacts and failed to consider alternatives that would obviate the need for more crude oil. The court also allowed an Endangered Species Act claim to proceed.

Federal Government Moved to Dismiss Keystone Pipeline Challenge. The federal government filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the presidential permit for Keystone XL pipeline. The federal government argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to review issuance of a presidential permit. In addition, the government argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to make their Endangered Species Act (ESA) claim as well as claims under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act). The government also asserted that the MBTA and Eagle Act claims were barred by controlling precedent.

Challenge to Keystone XL Pipeline Filed in Montana Federal Court. Two groups representing indigenous peoples and conservation interests filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Montana to challenge the U.S. Department of State’s issuance of a presidential permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline. The approval of the cross-border permit superseded Secretary of State John Kerry’s denial of the permit in November 2015. The Obama administration had determined that the project was not in the national interest, citing climate change as well as other environmental and health impacts. The groups alleged that the pipeline project “would pose grave risks to the environment, including the climate, water resources and wildlife, and to human health and safety” and would violate the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Alleged shortcomings in the environmental review for the permit included narrowing the project’s purpose and need to “unduly constrain[] the available options to those that are preemptively locked into fossil fuel dependence”; failure to “consider the feasible and environmentally beneficial alternatives of adopting aggressive renewable energy and energy efficiency measures to obviate the claimed need for more crude oil”; and failure to adequately disclose climate impacts. The complaint also alleged that the supplemental environmental impact statement was prepared by a consulting firm with an illegal conflict of interest.

Northern Plains Resource Council v. Shannon

Docket number(s): 4:17-cv-00031

Court/Admin Entity: D. Mont.

Case Documents:

In addition to dismissing claims brought in both this action and the related action, Indigenous Environmental Network v. U.S. Department of State, No. 4:17-cv-00029, the court decided to hold a NEPA claim against the Bureau of Land Management in abeyance until BLM issued a final decision.

Federal Government Moved to Dismiss Keystone Pipeline Challenge. The federal government filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the presidential permit for Keystone XL pipeline. The federal government argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to review issuance of a presidential permit. The government also argued that claims against the U.S. Bureau of Land Management should be dismissed because there was no final agency action and because the plaintiffs had not alleged standing for their claim under the ESA.

Plaintiffs Alleged Endangered Species Act Violation in Keystone XL Pipeline Challenge. Six environmental organizations challenging the Trump administration’s approval of the Keystone XL pipeline in Montana federal court added an Endangered Species Act claim to their complaint. The organizations contended that the federal defendants had not adequately considered the pipeline’s impacts on whooping cranes, interior least terns, and piping plovers, which are listed as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

Challenge to Keystone XL Pipeline Filed in Montana Federal Court. Six local and national environmental groups filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Montana to challenge the U.S. Department of State’s issuance of a presidential permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline. The approval of the cross-border permit superseded Secretary of State John Kerry’s denial of the permit in November 2015. The Obama administration had determined that the project was not in the national interest, citing climate change as well as other environmental and health impacts. The groups contended that the environmental impact statement (EIS) completed in 2014 was “inadequate at that time” and was “now woefully out of date.” The complaint alleged that the Department of State had acknowledged that greenhouse gas emissions from the crude oil the pipeline would convey would be 5–20% higher than previously indicated but had denied the significance of this new information and concluded that the 2014 EIS still reflected expected impacts. Other alleged shortcomings in the environmental review included failure to analyze the combined greenhouse gas impacts of the Keystone XL and Alberta Clipper pipelines and failure to analyze viable clean energy alternatives. The complaint also alleged that the State Department had not discussed what impact the approval of the permit would have on global action to address climate change. The plaintiffs asserted that the State Department had arbitrarily reversed its position on whether the pipeline project was in the national interest. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Secretary of the Interior, and Department of the Interior were included as defendants on the grounds that BLM would soon grant rights-of-way for the pipeline in reliance on the inadequate 2014 EIS.

These materials are intended to be a useful resource and may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. They are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.